> I think we need to see evidence that hyper-sonic missiles are (a) accurate and (b) able to hit moving targets.

(b) may not be necessary: hitting military bases, and munition and fuel stores, neither of which are moving targets, is a useful capability.

Why (b)? All the important stuff is on the ground and either stationary or moving at a speed that's a crawl relative to hypersonic.

They're real and there's plenty evidence of them hitting their targets in Ukraine. You're just not going to see it on from the armchair generals on Reddit or Twitter. Now a moving target, that's a whole different story.

A Kinzhal missile is not what people are referring to when they talk about "hypersonic missiles". They're usually referring to either maneuverable glide vehicles (lifting bodies for warheads that allow them to change course during the terminal phase), or air-breathing SCAMJETs cruise missiles that are both maneuverable and can fly at low altitude to avoid detection (well, other than the noise).

Also consider that russia's Kinzhal can go about mach 4-5. That sounds pretty bad, until you realize that good old ICBMs re-enter from space and travel in atmosphere somewhere between mach 15 and 20.

Fast missiles like Kinzhal are not new at all. As far back as the 60s the USA had the Sprint and Nike which could accelerate from the ground to mach 10 in seconds and would glow white hot from heating. Even maneuverable glide vehicles aren't new, the Pershing II could perform limited course changes during descent back in the early 80s. Yes, fast missiles are scary, but they're not in the same class as true air-breathing hypersonic weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pershing_II

A cruise missile strapped to a plane is not what people mean when they talk about hypersonics, even if it is (barely) technically correct. The new class of hypersonic missiles are aiming to be Mach 20 or faster, and highly maneuverable in comparison, quite a different capability. This is the type of missile that has not been proven to work beyond testing yet.

Ukraine is a poor example since Russia's approach is to induce fear by firing indiscriminately at civilian areas.

So it's impossible to gauge the accuracy of anything let alone the rarely seen Kinzhal missiles.

The term "hypersonic missile" these days is short-hand for terminally-guided endoatmospheric missiles that can operate at hypersonic velocities. This is an extremely difficult engineering problem and there is no evidence that anyone has an operational weapon in this class.

Nothing in the Ukraine fits this description. Those are ordinary ballistic missiles, which naturally have hypersonic ballistic re-entry. There is nothing interesting about that, we've had it for 70+ years now.